[JESII]

I don't know. It's clear he did not feel obligated to provide lots for the Founders, and he justifies that in his initial note, right? The $1,000 subscription is intended to advance the sport in this land as opposed to be an investment.

That said, the simple fact that he identifies the Founders as the people deciding the fate of surplus land implies pretty clearly that part of the agreement to become a Founder was some real estate. Once you're splitting some smaller portion among 60 people, it's pretty easy to imagine this group simply agreeing to let it remain with the club.

If he'd altogether abandoned the notion of providing real estate as the carrot for the $1,000 check, why would he address it at all in 1912?

[DMoriarty]

Two thoughts not related to anyone's posts in particular:

1.  It occurs to me that perhaps all of this back and forth comes down to one issue, and it is one that has haunted these "discussions" for years:
When CBM agreed to purchase the NGLA land, did he already have a general idea of how his golf course would fit on that land, or not?
  -  If you believe he did have at least a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land before he secured the property, then it is impossible to believe that CBM intended to include a large housing component on the land, because there simply was no place for it.
  -  If you don't believe he had at least a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land before he secured the property, then you open up the possibility that he originally intended to use a large chunk of land for housing, but that somewhere during the process the realities of the actual site got in the way.

Is that a fair assessment of the fundamental difference of opinion here?

2.  I just took a look in Scotland's Gift and noticed something I hadn't before.  The 1904 Agreement copied in Scotland's Gift is different than the Agreement included in the appendix to the 1912 letter.  Specifically, stricken language is basically what I have previously indicated was just a"suggestion:  
  - Gone is the information about adding associate members.
  - Gone is the information about having the associate members build the clubhouse.
  - Gone is the description of the bond scheme.
  - Gone is the hypothetical about the real estate scheme.
  - Gone is the language about how, "This is only a suggestion.  The details can be worked out later."
  - He left in the part about how the money was intended to advance the sport, and not as an investment.
  - He left in the part about leaving the entire matter in CBM's hands.

I guess it is possible that CBM and/or his editors chose to selectively edit out these portions before printing the Agreement in his book, but I don't see why they would have.  It is also possible that, ultimately, that when it came time to "work out the details" a subsequent agreement was written that did not contain any of the suggestions from the earlier letter. Obviously 1906 newspaper accounts they were going off of the original language, but perhaps the misunderstandings in the newspaper cued CBM to clean up the language and take out the misleading "suggestions."

_______________________________________
Jim, I think you are reading too much into the 1912 mention.  He didn't mention housing, and he doesn't say they could split it in fee simple, he only said that the decision of what to do with the surplus was up to them.  We'd have to see the actual agreement to know what they ahd the power to do or not do.

[MCirba]

Mike,  I wish that, instead of launching into your next tangent to try and justify your preconceived conclusion, that you and your 15 person, TEPaul led, offsite think-tank/circle jerk had taken a few minutes to answer my two simple and straight forward questions.  Any chance of you doing so before you lead the website on this next wild goose chase?

David,

I'm sorry, but this isn't a courtroom and I'm pretty sure I'm not sworn in and legally directed to answer each and every leading question so you can control the narrative here.  

Besides, with all of the invective to wade through it's sometimes quite difficult to sort out your legitimate questions from purely rhetorical ones.   If you're expecting dialogue with me I'd appreciate dropping that old, tired routine, thanks.

As far as answering your questions I thought I was responding to your contention that the fact Macdonald made an offer for 120 acres at the site near the Shinnecock Canal prior to securing 200 acres at Sebonac Neck was proof that he had already dropped the real estate portion of his plan.  Instead I pointed out the major differences between the intended usage for each site by the developer.  

So, still hopeful we can move forward more constructively, let me respectfully try to answer what you wrote me yesterday which I'll color in blue.

Two questions:

1. We agree that by December 15, 2006 CBM and others had already been going over the land very carefully and that they already knew (at least) the beginning and end point, the length of the property, the use of the 1/4 mile on Peconic Bay, the mile of golf frontage on Bullshead Bay, the narrow width, the location of at least three famous and one soon to be famous holes, etc.  It seems safe to assume they had some other ideas as well. You think that CBM meant for the 1904 example to apply to NGLA.  If so, where exactly was CBM planning on putting the 90 acres of housing?

I think Macdonald did indeed have the sites for certain holes spotted out and basically knew the landforms he intended using.   However, I do think in his mind at that juncture he felt that the 200 acres was well sufficient for some combination of golf and Founders plots, even if it was simply an estimate at that point.   After all, just two years prior he had written that he'd need 110 acres for the golf course and even advised other clubs accordingly.   Even after the creation of the National in 1915 Max Behr repeated the standard thinking of needing around 110 acres for a course in that article you cited and as you know, CBM himself continued to advise clubs that around 120 acres was sufficient.  

I think a combination of two things happened.   First, I think more of the acreage was swampy and unusable than perhaps CBM realized.   The 1908 article during the construction phase is certainly evidence of that.  From the article;

"A rank waste of underbrush, woods, and marsh land has yielded to the will of man unitl now the end is in sight."

"Acting as co-workers with Mr. Macdonald are Mr. Whigham, Walter J. Travis, and Findlay S. Douglas.   Their suggestions and ideas have been carefully carried out by Mortimer Payne, the Southampton veteran...Few persons have any conception of the difficulties he has had to surmount.   Several low spots containing water to a depth of four feet have been drained, filled in, and left dry as a bone."

Also, I think that the plan to create alternative routes for the weaker player on every hole meant that the course became effectively much wider than originally estimated.   From the terrific 1907 Walter Travis article;

"Now in the laying out of the new course this underlying principle will be steadily kept in view, so that the average player may be enabled to play every hole - not so well as the better player, but without getting into trouble except from bad play.   In other words, there will be offered an alternative way of playing the hole - but it must not be forgotten that such shirking of the proper shot demanded will involve either the loss of a stroke or a very fairly executed second shot to make up for it."

As far as where it was to be located the December 16th 1906 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article stated;

"While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."   I think that was the plan at that point.

2.  You've admitted that the language in the Tribune article came from the 1904 letter. Do you now agree that the information in the other papers most likely came from the same?   If not, what is your reasoning?

Yes, that exact language was certainly from the 1904 Agreement with the Founders but why again was it showing up in late 1906 if something had already markedly changed from that original Agreement?   Especially in the press as each and every New York paper printed some version of the plan.

But that was hardly the only source of information.   In fact, the news stories of December 15th, 16th and beyond were chock full of info from CBM himself talking about the land he secured and his plans for it.  At that time, Macdonald had just secured the property and was very effective in using the press to promote his new club venture.   That same December 16th Brooklyn Daily News article included the following reference to a November article;

"A week ago last Saturday afternoon Charles B. Macdonald, in answer to a question put to him before the crowd in the lounging room at the Garden City clubhouse, said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills.   That admission would scarcely be worth repeating inasmuch as it was printed in this column as far back as last spring, but for one fact; the ideas of the project have been undergoing a change.   Months ago the Eagle expressed the opinion that the distance from New York to the Southampton region would put it out of possibilities, but there is now reason to alter that view.   It is a year and a half since the plan was launched and Long Island real estate values have since jumped alarmingly.   In the second place, calculations have shown that such a clubhouse as must be built could not be self supporting except by week end business when players would remain two or three nights and take their meals at the club.   Without much doubt the subscribers to the new club, some? of whom are members at Garden City will retain their connection there for midweek play and eventually seek a more distant ideal course for their Saturday and Sunday golf."

Along with CBM as a source, that same stry also quotes a discussion with Club Officials like Watson.

What's more, I think if the newspapers all reported something CBM had not intended in his Agreement with the Founders by late 1906 he would have been all over them demanding a retraction, but of course, that never happened.

Hope that helps.

*Note - I'll be away for the weekend so I'll respond to any followups as time permits next week.

[JESII]

Is that a fair assessment of the fundamental difference of opinion here?

I don't think so. I don't think anyone believes that as of late 1906 CBM didn't have a good idea of where the golf course would go on that property. I think the difference of opinion between you and Mike is that you generally don't like each other.

[JESII]

Jim, I think you are reading too much into the 1912 mention.  He didn't mention housing, and he doesn't say they could split it in fee simple, he only said that the decision of what to do with the surplus was up to them.  We'd have to see the actual agreement to know what they ahd the power to do or not do.

Could be...if Founders is synonymous with Board of Directors or Executive Committee or something like that, then I'd agree. It wasn't though and your last point in Bullet 2 - He left in the part about leaving the entire matter in CBM's hands supports that this surplus land, however much or little, was committed to the equivalent of an outside entity.

[DMoriarty]

I don't think so. I don't think anyone believes that as of late 1906 CBM didn't have a good idea of where the golf course would go on that property. I think the difference of opinion between you and Mike is that you generally don't like each other.

Jim,  I think you've got the second half right.  But as for the first part, I disagree. While Mike would like to have it both ways, he apparently doesn't think CBM had much of an idea of how the holes would fit on the property in December 1906.  Specifically,
 -  He thinks that, after already carefully studying the land for months and having other notable experts study the land, they hadn't yet figured out that some of the property was swampy and unusable.
  - He thinks that, after placing many of the holes and outlining the general footprint of the course, that CBM was still clinging to the notion that any course could fit on 110 acres. ("[J]ust two years prior he had written that he'd need 110 acres for the golf course and even advised other clubs accordingly. . . .")
-   He thinks that CBM hadn't yet realized that holes with alternate routes were wider than holes without alternate routes, this even though CBM had already written about the need for alternate routes.
-   He envisions that the houses were going to fit around the outside of the course, even though CBM specifically indicates that the exact borders of the course would be tailored to the needs of the golf course.
- etc.

Could be...if Founders is synonymous with Board of Directors or Executive Committee or something like that, then I'd agree. It wasn't though and your last point in Bullet 2 - He left in the part about leaving the entire matter in CBM's hands supports that this surplus land, however much or little, was committed to the equivalent of an outside entity.

NGLA had a Board of Directors which was elected by the Founders.  Sometimes major decisions are left not to the Directors, but rather to the entirety of the voting members, in this case the Founders.  As I said, I think this was the case at NGLA regarding the sale of memberships, and it looks to have been the case disposal of surplus land.  The Founders were by no means equivalent to an "outside entity," they were the controlling members of the club, with the power at least to control the sale of memberships, determine the makeup of the board, and determine disposition of the club property.

If you really think that this land was committed to an outside entity, what happened to it? Why is it still under club control?

[JESII]

David,

You understand I don't consider the Founders and outside entity...but their role in determining the use of the surplus land sure doesn't match the idea that "the entire matter was in CBM's hands" does it?

The reality, obviously, is that they bought 200 acres and didn't use all of it. Any idea how much was left over?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  The "general scheme" of finding and creating the golf course was to be left entirely in CBM's hands, not all the club business forever thereafter. After the course finished, the disposition of the surplus land was left to the Founders, as were other aspects of club business.  I don't see what this has to do with whether or not CBM intended to specifically set aside a large parcel for housing on the NGLA parcel.  

As for how much surplus land existed. I believe that Jim Kennedy used a planimeter to determine that about 180 acres were used for the golf course.  (I think I did the same experiment and came up with very slightly less, although I excluded certains areas (such as areas between holes) that were obviously not available for housing.

Essentially, the only areas not used for the golf course are bit of land below the bluff used for the practice area, and the bit of land to the right of the 17th hole.  Neither of these areas were large enough for a large housing component, and they weren't the types of parcels that were developed for real estate in 1906.

Despite Mike's claim to the contrary, there is no "border" land appropriate for housing, and there never was.  

Anyone who agrees with Mike that CBM intended to fit the course on 110 acres should go to a planimeter app and try to measure out a 110 acre course fitting the December description.  Keep in mind that CBM already told us  . . .
 - The course stretched for 2 miles.
 - It started and finished near Shinnecock Inn i.e. the location of the current 9th green and 10th tee.)  
 - It fronted Bullshead Bay for a mile. (i.e. the stretch of holes from the Eden to the Leven.)
 - It fronted Peconic Bay for a quarter of a mile (i.e. the current 18th hole.
 - The locations of, at the very least, the Alps, the Redan, the Eden, and the Cape had already been specifically identified.

What you end up with is an impossibly narrow stretch of land  (too narrow for one hole even, much less the holes CBM envisioned) with a huge bulge in the middle, where the already identified holes are located.  

Like an extremely skinny snake who had just swallowed whole a fat rabbit.

[DMoriarty]

I think a combination of two things happened.   First, I think more of the acreage was swampy and unusable than perhaps CBM realized.

Where is this unusable swampland, and how did it act as a detriment to the course CBM envisioned?  By your own choice of quotes it sounds as if CBM had "drained and filled" and used the swampland for the golf course, thus increasing the usable acreage, not decreasing it.  And a number holes incorporate the swampland into the golf holes, so again no loss of usable land.  So how did his use of the swampland make housing impossible?

Also, I think that the plan to create alternative routes for the weaker player on every hole meant that the course became effectively much wider than originally estimated.

CBM's ideas on providing alternate routes of play predate the purchase, and many of his ideal holes necessarily incorporate alternate routes, so it is a little hard to accept that he hadn't considered this.

Are you really suggesting after going over this land, that CBM, HJW, Travis, and others had no idea how wide these holes were to be, or where they sat with relation to each other, or that alternate routes created wider holes?  It makes no sense.  

Also what of the holes he had already identified? The Alps Hole and the Cape hole (and the others along Bullshead Bay) are at two ends of the width spectrum, with the Redan basically in between.  Do you think he was going to make narrow these holes down and run housing up the middle of the property?  It doesn't fit.  

As far as where it was to be located the December 16th 1906 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article stated;

"While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."   I think that was the plan at that point.

First, the Eagle article contains no new information on this issue.  It just paraphrases the same information as the two from the day before.  And you've acknowledged that this information was left over from the 1904 Agreement.

Second, given what CBM had already said about the course it is impossible for CBM to have had room for housing on the "bordering land."  Draw it out yourself.

Yes, that exact language was certainly from the 1904 Agreement with the Founders but why again was it showing up in late 1906 if something had already markedly changed from that original Agreement?   Especially in the press as each and every New York paper printed some version of the plan.

I already explained why.  It is because the information in all the papers comes (directly or indirectly) from the Notice of Payment Due and 1904 Subscription Agreement sent to the prospective members by CBM.  

You mention other sources of information and it is true there are other source s including extensive quotes by CBM and HJW.  Notably, none of the stuff from Dec. 1906 (as opposed copied from the 1904 agreement) mentions housing available on site for the members.  In fact it makes clear that NGLA wasn't going to get into that business.
______________________________________________________________

Lastly Mike,  I know in the past you like to draw these things out, so I encourage you to draw this one out.
- Draw a box around the area already described (Cape, Alps, Redan, Eden) and a line along 1/4 mile of Peconic Bay and Bullshead Bay all the way to the Eden Green, then up to and around the 9th green and 10th tee.
-That gives you the border on one side, and land you definitely have to include.  
- Now adjust your western border on the parts remaining to  try and figure out how a 110 acre course can fit, leaving enough width for an out and back routing.  

It can't be done.

Here is a simple online planimeter:  http://acme.com/planimeter/

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Usually when one is losing a debate the next step is to impugn the motivations or the personal knowledge of their opponent, suggesting by implication that they are somehow "cheating".  

Mike,

Who accused you of cheating ?

I asked you if others were contributing to your data base and in a round about response, you indicated that others had indeed supplied you with information.

Thanks for being candid and for letting me know that the Merionettes are still active.

Everything I've posted here is from my own research which includes contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles unearthed primarily by Joe Bausch, CBM's book, a book by David Goddard called "Colonizing Southampton".   I've tried to rely on facts and not conjecture and have preferred to let what was said, particularly by Macdonald himself as well as the timing of events over a number of years guide my research.   Of course, everyone is free to interpret these facts and evidence as they wish.   The best research builds on the shoulders of those who've come before, frankly.

I have also been part of a private email thread with about 15 addressees (some on GCA and some not) that was initiated by Tom Paul.  Frankly, Tom is much more into the history of the people who made up that world than I am but he is not feeding me any information to post and others here on that email can weigh in to correct me if they think I'm simply being a mouthpiece for Tom or any others.

However, in an email discussing David's response to my post (and Jeff's) yesterday regarding the real estate component, something clicked for me last night that I'm not sure Tom or others understood when I responded which I'll be posting about today.   Discussion is sometimes the mother of inspiration and frankly what David mentioned about CBM's initial offer to purchase 120 acres has me much more convinced than ever that I'm on the right track.  

Forgetting for a second that you're a lefty, you also tend to approach research from a different direction, having drawn your conclusions and then looking for and posting only that which supports your predisposition.

I wouldn't characterize you as a "neutral" researcher.

Wouldn't you agree ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike & David,

It would be interesting to see the 405 acre plot boundaries.

Does anyone have that map/schematic

[DMoriarty]

Was it 405 or 450?  I was thinking 450 but haven't gone back and checked.  Regardless, from the description it sounds like it was the entire area of NGLA, Sebonac, and the land in between.  I think the only question is whether the land just west of the current 9th hole was available.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I think the general consensus was the current NGLA property plus Sebonack, but I wonder if it didn't include the land West of # 8 fairway and # 9 and less land on or overlooking Peconic Bay.

I wonder if the land extended North of RT 27 and West to Cold Spring Pond.

Has anyone ever defined/illusrtrated the parcel that was available to CBM ?

We know what he selected, but do we know what was available to him ?

You'd have to wonder why he wouldn't select the land where Sebonack's current clubhouse is located, if not for golf, for his clubhouse and one would think that he might also choose the highest points on the property, not far from Sebonack's 10th green.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Isn't it the height of inanity for you to paraphrase and repeat CBM's quotes, and offer opinions that what he said is "correct", and ascribe ideas to me that I don't have, and draw ludicrously obvious conclusions?  Why bother?

Patrick's premise:

The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.

CBM says in Scotland's Gift that "We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once,"

Bryan,

Note the words, "at once"
A shortage of funds precluded CBM from building a clubhouse, so he decided to use a convenient nearby Inn

He goes on to say "our intention was to have our first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn"

That's correct.
You wouldn't expect him to have golfers walk 500 yards or 1,700 yards to the first tee, would you

In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay

.....................................

As for the rest, see below.

Patrick's premise:

The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.

.............................


In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay

Another moronic observation followed by your rote, unproven assertion about the always intended site. 

He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned. 

They didn't own the land near the Shinnecock Inn.

Another unproven assertion or would you like to bring forward the deeds?

But, if they did, why would they abandon a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn, just because the Shinnecock Inn burned down.

I don't know why they abandoned the site for the club-house "near" the Shinnecock Inn.  CBM didn't say.  But he does say he abandoned it; that suggests to me that he owned it and originally intended to use it as the club-house site?

The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have remained intact and available for construction.

Perhaps you should rewrite this sentence so it makes sense.  It's nonsensical as is. 

But, CBM built his clubhouse where he always intended it to be.

Restating your opinion multiple times doesn't make it any more true.  You have presented no evidence to support the opinion.

In addition, even if NGLA owned the land behind the 9th green, CBM, with his ego, would never build a clubhouse in the shadow of the Shinnecock clubhouse, a club he was recently thrown out of

Another unsupported opinion.  He didn't mind intending to start and end his course there though.

Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site? 

Even If they owned the land, why not build the clubhouse there ?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have had no impact on the land, and more importantly, they had a major highway leading up to their front door, so why abandon that theoretical site and build your clubhouse on the other side of the property unless you always intended to build your clubhouse on a site that evena ten year old could figure out as the best site for a clubhouse.

He said he "abandoned" his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn.  Seems likely he owned it.  I guess you'd have to ask CBM why he intended to build his originally intended club-house on a site near the Shinnecock Inn.  Maybe, initially, he didn't have the insight of a ten year old about siting club-houses.

You'd have to be a moron to think that he'd build a clubhouse on land they didn't own, with the Shinnecock clubhouse and the Shinnecock members looking down on him/them

So, you're asserting he abandoned his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn because he didn't own it?  Could you please bring forward the deeds.  Hard to believe he would say that he abandoned the site when he didn't own it.




Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning.  When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay. 

Bryan, They didn't own the land

Do you have the deeds?

He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.

They abandoned the Shinnecock Inn site because that site was a default site, a site of convenience.
They didn't own the land near the 9th green.

But, they did own the land where the current clubhouse is located.
In addition, the routing of #'s 1 and 18 was deliberate in that perfect land for golf was abandoned in favor of creating a donut hole where the clubhouse was always intended to reside.

When's the last time you heard of someone constructing a building on land they didn't own ?,

He didn't abandon the Shinnecock Inn site.  He abandoned a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn.  No matter how many times you say that they didn't own the land there, you have offered no proof of what they did own.  Hard to imagine that he would say he "abandoned" a site he didn't own or have an option on.

[Bryan Izatt]

It was said multiple times that the intention was to build the course on 110 acres with 5 acres for the club-house and ancillary buildings and 90 acres for land for the founders.  It was also said that they needed to buy 200 or more acres.  Curious that they didn't do the math and say 205 or more acres.

When do you suppose in the process that CBM determined that he couldn't actually fit his ideal course on 110 acres?  Would it have been after the course was designed and he had the site surveyed?  Were CBM or the others experts on estimating acreage; 110 or 205 acres covers a lot of ground?  I doubt that most people could guesstimate areas that large.

If we take CBM's simplistic description of the property as a rectangle 2 miles long by 4 acres wide that most likely meant the rectangle was 280 yards wide.  If you ascribe a 100 yard wide corridor going out and another 100 yard wide corridor coming back in, that leaves a corridor of say 40 yards on either side.  Given that site was 2 miles long in the simplistic description, the exterior corridors could support close to 60 lots.  Now, I don't believe for a moment that the site was actually a rectangle.  I think CBM simplified it that way for the press and potential members.  But, in simplistic mathematical terms I can see how he thought there would be enough rooms on a 205 acre site. 

Of course, that would all go awry in a real world routing on a real world topographical site.  Perhaps he knew the course wan't going to work on a 110 acre site when he finished the routing.  Or, maybe it only became clear when he had the site surveyed afterwards.  Or, maybe the 1.5 acre plots were just a come-on for the investors and were never intended to be real.  Given that he made an early offer on the 120 acre site near the canal suggests to me that initially he may not have understood that his ideal course of template holes using some existing natural features wasn't going to fit on that small a plot, although, I guess, Merion subsequently managed to get a pretty good, although tightly constrained, course on 120 acres.

[MCirba]

Bryan,

Neither Macdonald nor his club ever owned the Shinnecock Inn although as CBM stated they did intend to use it for their clubhouse in the earliest years of the new club.  More on that tomorrow..

Once the routing was established and finalized in 1907 (and the land purchase cimpleted to the exact metes and bounds) and the Inn burned in 1908, there were only 2 logical places to locate a clubhouse, right?  And I'm not sure how far beyond today's 9th green the NGLA property extended so unless the developer agreed to rebuild the Inn after the fire (and it was woefully under-insured) there may have realistically been only one possible location available on the original purchased acreage.

I agree that it would be useful if we had the exact original boundaries at hand for this discussion but I would agree with you that we simply don't know when Macdonald abandoned his plan for housing.

I just don't see where there is evidence of that by Dec 1906.  If the NYC newspapers grossly mis-communicated his plans...actually..his agreement with the clubs Founders, is there any doubt Macdonald would have demanded a retraction?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Isn't it the height of inanity for you to paraphrase and repeat CBM's quotes, and offer opinions that what he said is "correct", and ascribe ideas to me that I don't have, and draw ludicrously obvious conclusions?  

Why bother?

Bryan,

Because colossal morons, such as yourself need to be led to the logical conclusion through repetition.

Patrick's premise:

The current site was always intended to be the site of the clubhouse.

...........................

In the next paragraph after saying the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he goes on to say that they "abandoned the site near the old Shinnecock Inn and determined to build it (the club-house) on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay;"

He certainly couldn't use the Shinnecock Inn anymore, could he ?
So, he had to build a clubhouse, and the site always intended for the clubhouse was in the donut hole in the routing overlooking Peconic Bay

Another moronic observation followed by your rote, unproven assertion about the always intended site.  

It's not an uproven assertion, it's a logical conclusion based upon a number of facts.


He doesn't say they abandoned the Shinnecock Inn or its site; rather he refers to a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that they abandoned.  


They didn't own the land near the Shinnecock Inn.

Another unproven assertion or would you like to bring forward the deeds?

My source regarding the ownership of the land comes from NGLA.  What's your source ?

But, if they did, why would they abandon a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn, just because the Shinnecock Inn burned down.

I don't know why they abandoned the site for the club-house "near" the Shinnecock Inn.  CBM didn't say.  But he does say he abandoned it; that suggests to me that he owned it and originally intended to use it as the club-house site?

If that "suggests to you", then show us where that site, "near" the Shinnecock Inn, was.
Remember, it's the shaded area that NGLA owned, not the white areas.


Here's the map depicting the land they owned, show us where the clubhouse site "near" the Shinnecock Inn is.
And, remember, the clubhouse is rather massive with a significant parking lot.
So show us on this map where that site, "near" the Shinnecock Inn is located.

The burning of the Shinnecock Inn had no influence on the land, whichwould have remained intact and available for construction.

Perhaps you should rewrite this sentence so it makes sense.  It's nonsensical as is.  

Done, in italics and underlined above

But, CBM built his clubhouse where he always intended it to be.

Restating your opinion multiple times doesn't make it any more true.  
You have presented no evidence to support the opinion.

I've presented the evidence, you just don't want me to be right
1.   They didn't own the land
2    CBM designed the routing such that a donut hole for the clubhouse and parking was left between # 1 & # 18 for his clubhouse.
3    He wouldn't build a clubhouse that would be looked down upon by the Shinnecock clubhouse and members
4    Only a colossal moron, given the choice, would site the clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn, versus overlooking Peconic Bay

In addition, even if NGLA owned the land behind the 9th green, CBM, with his ego, would never build a clubhouse in the shadow of the Shinnecock clubhouse, a club he was recently thrown out of

Another unsupported opinion.  He didn't mind intending to start and end his course there though.

Wrong again, he never intended to start and finish by the Shinnecock Inn, that was a only temporary convenience due to lack of funds.

Does this not sound like they had a site for the club-house that was near both their intended first hole and the Shinnecock Inn site?  


Even If they owned the land, why not build the clubhouse there ?
The burning of the Shinnecock Inn would have had no impact on the land, and more importantly, they had a major highway leading up to their front door, so why abandon that theoretical site and build your clubhouse on the other side of the property unless you always intended to build your clubhouse on a site that evena ten year old could figure out as the best site for a clubhouse.

He said he "abandoned" his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn.  Seems likely he owned it.

But he didn't.


I guess you'd have to ask CBM why he intended to build his originally intended club-house on a site near the Shinnecock Inn.  
Maybe, initially, he didn't have the insight of a ten year old about siting club-houses.

You'd have to be a moron to think that he'd build a clubhouse on land they didn't own, with the Shinnecock clubhouse and the Shinnecock membership looking down on him/them

So, you're asserting he abandoned his site "near" the Shinnecock Inn because he didn't own it?  
Could you please bring forward the deeds.


Why don't you show us, on the map below, where that parcel of land, large enough to accomodate his massive clubhouse, parking lot and access roads was going to be.



Hard to believe he would say that he abandoned the site when he didn't own it.

Some theorize that he intended to buy additional land not far from RT 27, to provide access..

But, since he routed the golf course "FIRST", that should make even a colossal moron such as yourself wonder, why did he leave such an
enormous gap between the 18th hole and the 1st hole, if not to accomodate the siting of his enormous clubhouse and parking lot

Perhaps they had the site, but not the money to build the club-house on it in the beginning.  When the Inn burned down and they presumably had the money to build the new club-house they abandoned their originally intended site and went down to the Bay.  

Bryan, They didn't own the land

Do you have the deeds?

He doesn't say why they "abandoned" the first site near the intended first hole.

They abandoned the Shinnecock Inn site because that site was a default site, a site of convenience.
They didn't own the land near the 9th green.

But, they did own the land where the current clubhouse is located.
In addition, the routing of #'s 1 and 18 was deliberate in that perfect land for golf was abandoned in favor of creating a donut hole where the clubhouse was always intended to reside.

When's the last time you heard of someone constructing a building on land they didn't own ?,

He didn't abandon the Shinnecock Inn site.  He abandoned a site "near" the Shinnecock Inn.

So show us where that site, large enough to accomodate his clubhouse and parking lot, is ?




No matter how many times you say that they didn't own the land there, you have offered no proof of what they did own.


My source comes from NGLA.
In addition, here's the map reflecting what they owned.
What are your proofs ?


Hard to imagine that he would say he "abandoned" a site he didn't own or have an option on.

Oh, so now you're stating that he had an option on additional land.
Where did he say that ?

When you add up all of the factors, even a moron would conclude that the current site is the site that CBM always intended for his clubhouse.

Only a colossal moron would argue otherwise.

[/quote]
[/quote]

[MCirba]

Couldn't he have located his clubhouse in the large gap between 5 and 14 and just renumbered the holes?  

Not in front of a computer now but wasn't there a proposed locker house slightly nearer todays 10th tee from the Shinnecock Inn drawn on the August 1907 drawing that was published after the routing was finalized?   Was that ever built?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Couldn't he have located his clubhouse in the large gap between 5 and 14 and just renumbered the holes?  

Mike,

Would you deem that location "near" the Shnnecock Inn ?


Not in front of a computer now but wasn't there a proposed locker house slightly nearer todays 10th tee from the Shinnecock Inn drawn on the August 1907 drawing that was published after the routing was finalized?   Was that ever built?

Yes, it's the very, very, very small halfway house.

There is NO ROOM for a clubhouse at that location

[MCirba]

Here is the first drawing of the NGLA routing that was published with an associated article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on August 26th, 1907.   Note the "Locker House" right behind the original 18th green near the Shinnecock Inn, as well as a "Pump House" between 5 and 14.   Was the Locker House ever built and was it on land that NGLA owned?   Exactly how much land behind today's 9th green was in the original purchase?

By the way, does anyone know if that scorecard drawing that is being displayed illustrates the land owned by NGLA from actual metes and bounds or is simply a caricature with shadowing for aesthetic considerations?





Also, it does sound as though the Shinnecock Inn was built for longevity, as well as intended for use by those travelling out to NGLA as seen in the article below.   Related, David Goddard's book "Colonizing Southampton" mentions, "A new site for the hotel was selected a little to the east of the Hills depot and at the southern tip of the projected National Golf Links.   This was no doubt deliberate.   In 1907, Charles Macdonald had no immediate plans for a club house, and it would have made eminent sense to Redfield that the many well-heeled golfers expected to descend on the National would need a place to stay."  It was insured for only $51,000 and was never rebuilt after it burned.

[MCirba]

Here is a better image of the April 6th, 1907 article showing the Olmsted/Vaux plan for developement of the Shinnecock Hills region.  (Sorry for the need to scroll but the article is large)  You'll note that the concentration of building lots are in the central area extending all of the way to the Shinnecock Canal to the west (where Macdonald first offered to buy 120 acres but was rejected) but that no development was planned for the area of Sebonac Neck in the northeast, as CBM told us that everyone thought the land was worthless and that it had never been surveyed.

The article itself is a good one for a better understanding of what was proposed.

Where do folks think that 120 acre site might have been that was Macdonald's first choice?   We know CBM told us that the dunes and soil were better on the north side of the island than the south side so I'm thinking it had to have been north of the railroad tracks.   We also know that the "North Road" hadn't yet been made passable in the 1905-06 timeframe when CBM made that offer, so it's unlikely that would have been a barrier, especially given the extremely limited traffic and the idea at the time that roads made very good hazards.

[MCirba]

Here's a 1904 topographic map of the area near the Shinnecock Canal, also showing that the land of Sebonac Neck had already also been surveyed at that time.   It looks to be similar type land based on the comparative topos.   Is there anything anyone sees except a potential planned housing development that would have prevented CBM from building a course on 120 acres of the land along the North Shore in 1905/06?

I wonder if Macdonald meant that the area of Sebonac Neck "had never been surveyed" for housing?   That would make sense as the rest of the Shinnecock Hills were surveyed for housing in 1906/07 by Olmsted and Vaux.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Please tell me that you're not relying on the sketch below to prove that NGLA didn't own the land behind the 9th green.  It doesn't even have a scale on it, nor is it in the context of a map of the area, nor does it say that it depicts the property boundaries.  Why don't you get the deeds to prove your point that there was no land that NGLA owned behind the 9th green.

Who owns the land between the 9th green and the highway to the south today?  How many acres are there?

You do agree that CBM said he abandoned a site near the Shinnecock Inn, don't you.  Or are you saying that CBM was wrong and that he didn't own a site near the Shinnecock Inn?



Mike,

I think everyone knows that NGLA didn't own the Shinnecock Inn.  I hope you're not catching the Mucci disease of stating the obvious.   

You're not really going to start again on the location of the Canal site are you?  We beat that to death a couple of years ago. 

The other sketch showing the Locker House behind the 9th green is also not to scale (even worse) but does suggest that he owned enough land behind the 9th green to house the Locker House.  Did I not read somewhere that it was to become an adjunct to the club-house?

[Sven Nilsen]

Just dropping in to point out that the map in Bryan's last post, which has been trotted out a number of times during this thread, bears a striking resemblance to the original plaster model of the course.

Nov. 1916 - Golf Illustrated

[MCirba]

Sven,

Very cool, thanks.

Bryan,

I may be suffering from Mucci's penchant for re-stating the obvious, it wouldn't be the first time.  

The following article from December 17th, 1906 mentions the Inn, the Locker House, and the possibility of housing lots/cabins.




As far as your contention that the site Macdonald originally wanted for his ideal course near the Shinnecock Canal has been "beat to death", I'd contend instead that it was obscured in the dust of miles of sandy roads, bridges to nowhere and logical dead ends.

I posted that topo from 1904 so that any architects here might weigh in on what landforms looked favorable, as well as to show those following along at home that the land of Sebonac Neck had already been previously surveyed, at least topographically.   I think CBM meant that it had never been surveyed for housing plots, to contrast it to the 120 acre site near the Shinnecock Canal Macdonald wanted originally that the developer/real estate company rejected.

We've also since learned that the "North Highway", the place where Patrick was imagining today's LIE  , only was made passable for automobiles in 1907, but not when CBM was making his original offer.   You may also note that in 1904, (and for years after) that North Highway ran nowhere near as far North and West as it was projected in the Olmstead/Vaux map...it was only in the 1940s that it got extended further north and west so there was plenty of room where I originally suggested that the course might have been located.  For reference, I've included another topo from the end of WWII below that shows highway development as proposed by Olmstead/Vaux never happened up to that point.  Unfortunately it doesn't show as far west as the canal.

I'm still curious to try and determine what land in Shinnecock Hills CBM picked first for his ideal course and I'm curious about the timing and the process.   Did he route a course there before making an offer?   Did he have it toopgraphically surveyed to smaller increments and was any clearing necessary?

In fact, one outstanding question in my mind around the Sebonac Neck site is simply; did the clearing of the land (recall that it was unwalkable swamp and wasteland and overgrown with thickets) take place prior to December 1906 or after?  

1944 Topo also showing housing development at that date.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()